Poll saying white Catholics embrace same-sex marriage than other Americans

[estesbob]

Why should straight couples be endorsed? Just because they can have babies? Marriage isnt required for that.

The interest for gay couples? Stability. Gay couples who get married likely want to contribute to society as a couple, such as raising children…perhaps many of those children who need homes.

Here we go again. Let’s discredit same sex marriage because rape is wrong, stealing is wrong, blah blah blah. I don’t think the marriage of my fathers is hurting you in any way whatsoever.

I’m not asking you to “accept” anything. I’m asking you to not impose your “truth” on everyone else. It holds no water when put up to debate. You can keep believing what you wsh, and I’m sure you will (as is your right), once same sex marriage is legal nationwide.

But you want to impose your Truth on us.

 

[phil19034]

What’s truly despicable is Catholics/Christians who continue to use their religious beliefs to justify their discrimination, their fear, and yes their hate for other human beings, based solely on their sexuality. We should not judge and impose our views on who other people choose to sleep with.

It’s called love the person hate the sin. Should we stand by, say noting and let the. Burn in hell for all eternity? Or speak up and try to save them?

If you saw kids playing dangerously close to a cliff, would you speak up in an attempt to save them or say “who am I to judge what they do or spoil their fun?”

When you see someone doing something dangerous, do you speak up or mind your own business? The Christ like thing and the loving thing is to SPEAK UP. Not shut up and “mind your own business.”

Only hypocrites should mind their own business.

 

[manualman]

Who said motherhood wasn’t special? Of course it is, as it fatherhood. And yes, I have met my mother. I’ve told this story before. But to recap, I met her when I was about twenty years old. She was a god-awful woman who apologized that I was “raised by f-ggots” and had the nerve to ask me for money.

Popping a baby out of uterus does not make you a fit parent, as my biological mother shows. Being a parent means putting your child before yourself. It means unconditional love and support. Being a parent doesn’t have a gender preference. It just depends on the person.

Also, for the record, I grew up with two fathers, yes, but I was never lacking in female role models, either. I had my grandmother, aunts, friends of my dads, etc…

I was never deprived of anything. For anyone to suggest otherwise is beyond arrogant.

I’m sorry, but your own words reveal the pain of not knowing the love of a mother.

Arrogant is exactly what the deaf parents called the doctor who suggested surgery to restore hearing for the child. And for the same reason. It’s a good thing to make the best of an imperfect situation. It stops being a good thing when people no longer recognize the difference between making the best of the situation given and the best situation possible.

 

[Angels84]

But you want to impose your Truth on us.

Actually, no.

Here’s how it works:

Your “truth” is denying millions of people civil marriage. You do not believe they should be treated equally as heterosexual couples. Your “truth” is that their “lifestyle” (whatever that means) is “wrong”.

My “truth” is there is no reason to deny civil marriage to a homosexual couple. I do not believe it should be forced into churches, but I do believe it should be enforced by the government. This is not denying you anything. This is not having you be treated differently. You would continue to be treated the same when it comes to marriage.

One truth denies and deprives. The other doesn’t. That’s quite a difference.

 

[Path_Finder]

Actually, no.

Here’s how it works:

Your “truth” is denying millions of people civil marriage. You do not believe they should be treated equally as heterosexual couples. Your “truth” is that their “lifestyle” (whatever that means) is “wrong”.

My “truth” is there is no reason to deny civil marriage to a homosexual couple. I do not believe it should be forced into churches, but I do believe it should be enforced by the government. This is not denying you anything. This is not having you be treated differently. You would continue to be treated the same when it comes to marriage.

One truth denies and deprives. The other doesn’t. That’s quite a difference.

Your truth is redefining marriage, whether I agree or not, that’s what you are doing and you wish to do that for every man, woman and child? Marriage has stood thousands of years as being between a man and a woman and should one bring up polygamy, well, that was only with kings and not in the US except for a few exceptions, the Mormons and so on.

No, to wish to redefine marriage for everyone else does not strike me as correct and indeed, is imposing one’s morals on others.

We can call a dog a cat but it is still a dog. There is no way a marriage is between two members of the same sex.

 

[estesbob]

Actually, no.

Here’s how it works:

Your “truth” is denying millions of people civil marriage. You do not believe they should be treated equally as heterosexual couples. Your “truth” is that their “lifestyle” (whatever that means) is “wrong”.

My “truth” is there is no reason to deny civil marriage to a homosexual couple. I do not believe it should be forced into churches, but I do believe it should be enforced by the government. This is not denying you anything. This is not having you be treated differently. You would continue to be treated the same when it comes to marriage.

One truth denies and deprives. The other doesn’t. That’s quite a difference.

Your Truth changes the definition of marriage to embrace sexual deviancy. It Mocks marriage and religion. I am under no requirement to accept your truth and have every right to fight it-which I will

 

[Angels84]

I’m sorry, but your own words reveal the pain of not knowing the love of a mother.

Arrogant is exactly what the deaf parents called the doctor who suggested surgery to restore hearing for the child. And for the same reason. It’s a good thing to make the best of an imperfect situation. It stops being a good thing when people no longer recognize the difference between making the best of the situation given and the best situation possible.

Oh my goodness. So…you know me well enough (through our brief online interactions) to determine I suffer for never experiencing love from a mother? I experienced love from two parents, and I still do. Now I am a mother, and the love I feel for my children is the same love my fathers feel for me.

You continue to make my point that you are arrogant in your very description of what arrogant actually is. Who are you to determine what is best for every single child? Would you really tell two parents, be it males or females, that they aren’t good enough for their children? Would you really tell children they didn’t have an “ideal” family, or not a real family at all? Wait, scratch that. You’ve already done that here. You’ve made it clear in your infinite wisdom, that apparently transcends reason, that you have determined I was denied the very best by having two fathers.

Your family isn’t better than anyone else’s, and it certainly isn’t any of your business if a family isn’t what you would consider “traditional”. I had a friend growing up whose parents were financially irresponsible and put their addiction before their child. It was so bad sometimes that my parents would buy clothes for her, or would give me extra lunch money to give to her just in case her parents “forgot”.

My parents weren’t any better because they are gay. They were better because they were simply better parents. There are bad parents everywhere, straight or gay, but for you to imply that a same sex couple is automatically not totally fit to BE parents…it just shows how small your world really is.

 

[Angels84]

Your truth is redefining marriage, whether I agree or not, that’s what you are doing and you wish to do that for every man, woman and child? Marriage has stood thousands of years as being between a man and a woman and should one bring up polygamy, well, that was only with kings and not in the US except for a few exceptions, the Mormons and so on.

No, to wish to redefine marriage for everyone else does not strike me as correct and indeed, is imposing one’s morals on others.

We can call a dog a cat but it is still a dog. There is no way a marriage is between two members of the same sex.

Whose redefining what you consider marriage? If you get married, it’s your marriage. That is your husband/wife (I’m not sure of your gender). You’d be husband and wife. Same definition for you. And same definition for your Church, too.

Now, if I was demanding all people enter into “a gay marriage”, you’d have a point. But alas, I am not.

 

[phil19034]

That depends on what you consider secularism.

And if you’re “truth” involves telling homosexual people that their families are inferior or flat out “Oxymorons” (i’ve seen that said here), yes, that is bigotry.

I’ve asked this question many times on this forum and have yet to get a real answer:

What do you say to the Gay couples that have been together for years in a monogamous relationship who are now raising children? You would honestly tell them, and their children, that they aren’t a real family?

My (name removed by moderator)atience stems from the fact that I never get real answers to questions like these. I only get quotes from the Bible or the catechism.

No. I would not say there are not a real family. The Children are never at fault for the sins of the parents. If I were to council the parents, I would say the same thing to a couple (like my great grandmother) who live in a heterosexual unmarried state (because they have an impediment to marriage) … Live as brother and sister. I would hope that the two gay parents can love each other like brothers or sisters, and refrain from sexual acts. Same way my great grandmother did. And I’m sure, that when she gave into the temptation, she when to confession.

It’s not about bigotry, it’s about loving the people enough to not want their souls to rot in hell.

I believe it was Our Lady of Fatima who revealed that there are more people in hell due to sexual sin than any other sin.

 

[Angels84]

Your Truth changes the definition of marriage to embrace sexual deviancy. It Mocks marriage and religion. I am under no requirement to accept your truth and have every right to fight it-which I will

Sexual deviancy according to…your faith, correct? And “my definition” isn’t changing any definition of what you consider marriage. Again, why would your definition change? Or the churches for that matter? I don’t see the Catholic Church changing it’s position, nor should it have to. We’re talking about Civil Marriage here, which the Church doesn’t have control of.

Keep fighting it. That’s your right. Politically and socially, you’re losing and will continue to lose that battle. But who cares? No one is asking to change the Church’s definition to that of the government, so why are you demanding the government change it’s definition to that of the Church? It seems to me it is you who is imposing.

 

[estesbob]

Whose redefining what you consider marriage? If you get married, it’s your marriage. That is your husband/wife (I’m not sure of your gender). You’d be husband and wife. Same definition for you. And same definition for your Church, too.

Now, if I was demanding all people enter into “a gay marriage”, you’d have a point. But alas, I am not.

But you are demanding we accept your definition of marriage. We are under no requirement to do so

 

[estesbob]

Sexual deviancy according to…your faith, correct? And “my definition” isn’t changing any definition of what you consider marriage. Again, why would your definition change? Or the churches for that matter? I don’t see the Catholic Church changing it’s position, nor should it have to. We’re talking about Civil Marriage here, which the Church doesn’t have control of.

Keep fighting it. That’s your right. Politically and socially, you’re losing and will continue to lose that battle. But who cares? No one is asking to change the Church’s definition to that of the government, so why are you demanding the government change it’s definition to that of the Church? It seems to me it is you who is imposing.

I cant lose. The Truth is the Truth. Neither you nor the culture decides what the truth is. You can call deviancy normal, you can call the coupling of two men (or women) marriage-but that does not make it so.

 

[Angels84]

No. I would not say there are not a real family. The Children are never at fault for the sins of the parents. If I were to council the parents, I would say the same thing to a couple (like my great grandmother) who live in a heterosexual unmarried state (because they have an impediment to marriage) … Live as brother and sister. I would hope that the two gay parents can love each other like brothers or sisters, and refrain from sexual acts. Same way my great grandmother did. And I’m sure, that when she gave into the temptation, she when to confession.

It’s not about bigotry, it’s about loving the people enough to not want their souls to rot in hell.

I believe it was Our Lady of Fatima who revealed that there are more people in hell due to sexual sin than any other sin.

Now whose sounding like Westboro?

Why must you insist these families aren’t “real”? They’re not telling you that yours aren’t real. Again, whose imposing again?

 

[Angels84]

But you are demanding we accept your definition of marriage. We are under no requirement to do so

No. I’m demanding the government extend benefits to gay couples.

 

[Angels84]

I cant lose. The Truth is the Truth. Neither you nor the culture decides what the truth is. You can call deviancy normal, you can call the coupling of two men (or women) marriage-but that does not make it so.

I know in your mind you cannot lose, hence my earlier statements about living in a bubble. And if that makes you happy, super. If you think something is “deviant”, oh well. If you don’t consider the marriage of my parents a “real” marriage, that’s your right.

But your religious beliefs don’t get to govern my parents or anyone else.

 

[phil19034]

And yes, gay couples are absolutely capable of raising children. It has been proven time and time again; the opposition just refuses to acknowledge it.

Of course gay couples are capable of raising children. Just like single mothers and single fathers are capable of raising children. But on average, the best situation is to be raised by a mother and father who love each other.

A loving, single mother is going to do a good job raising her child. But she would have been able to do a better job with a loving father.

2 loving dads or 2 loving moms are going to do the best they can and do a job too. They might even be able to do a better job vs the single parent. But the child still doesn’t get the interaction from the opposite sex. On average, children are better off with a mother and a father, living together in love.

 

[Angels84]

Of course gay couples are capable of raising children. Just like single mothers and single fathers are capable of raising children. But on average, the best situation is to be raised by a mother and father who love each other.

A loving, single mother is going to do a good job raising her child. But she would have been able to do a better job with a loving father.

2 loving dads or 2 loving moms are going to do the best they can and do a job too. They might even be able to do a better job vs the single parent. But the child still doesn’t get the interaction from the opposite sex. On average, children are better off with a mother and a father, living together in love.

And where are you getting this “average” from? I’ve yet to see any thorough, credible study that determined this.

Again, a childs quality of upbringing doesn’t have to depend on whether or not they have both a mother and a father present. I’m not saying that it COULDNT, but it doesn’t have to. What’s important is how good the parent or parents are at raising their child.

 

[ltravis]

No. I’m demanding the government extend benefits to gay couples.

I am guessing your definition of marriage is something like “a societally sanctioned sexual relationship between two committed people who love each other”. Can I ask why the government should invest its resources in that? I mean, what does society have to gain from “subsidizing” a private sexual relationship, whether straight or gay? In other words, what’s the “return on investment” which society gains by facilitating a couple’s sexual relationship, and not other relationships? Why should romantic relationships be of public concern at all?

 

[Havard]

I am guessing your definition of marriage is something like “a societally sanctioned sexual relationship between two committed people who love each other”. Can I ask why the government should invest its resources in that? I mean, what does society have to gain from “subsidizing” a private sexual relationship, whether straight or gay? In other words, what’s the “return on investment” which society gains by facilitating a couple’s sexual relationship, and not other relationships? Why should romantic relationships be of public concern at all?

Remove the words sexual and love. E.g., I know a gay man married to a straight woman simply for benefits purposes. And remove committed, too, actually, considering we have no fault divorce.

It’s just two people, who aren’t (closely) related.

But yes, this was my earlier point. It’s become a completely arbitrary grouping.

 

[ltravis]

And where are you getting this “average” from? I’ve yet to see any thorough, credible study that determined this.

Again, a childs quality of upbringing doesn’t have to depend on whether or not they have both a mother and a father present. I’m not saying that it COULDNT, but it doesn’t have to. What’s important is how good the parent or parents are at raising their child.

Is gender makeup of a child’s parents irrelevant? Your honest opinion - does it make any difference at all, generally speaking?